DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 116, delete “Equation 50”, and insert --Equation 40--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites in a training mode; determining a first set of values associated with the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; generating coefficients. using digital filters. wherein the coefficients are based on the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool and the first set of values. and where the coefficients are used to calculate a performance score of the computer vision tool using a recall score and a precision score for each labeled image; filtering out coefficients corresponding to labeled images with performance scores below a threshold; in a non-training mode; when the status signal is high, receiving a number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for one or more second images at the area of interest; outputting a statistically adjusted machine count for the one or more second images, where the statistically adjusted machine count is based at least in part on the coefficients generated in the training mode, and the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for the one or more second images in the non-training mode. These claim limitations are mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, which fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional elements in claim 1 are receiving, for each of a plurality of first images at an area of interest, a number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; displaying a visual status signal to a recipient; and when the status signal is low, outputting to the recipient, a notification of declination to process subsequent images from the computer vision tool.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Receiving a number of objects counted is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The steps for displaying a visual status signal and outputting to the recipient a notification, are simply outputting the result of the abstract idea, which are also insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered in combination, the additional elements provide no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, the courts have recognized that retrieving or collecting data in various manners is well understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 2-5 and 21-28 depend from claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 21-28 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 21-28 are rejected for the same reason.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 29 is directed to computer vision count assessment tool, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 29 recites in a training mode; determining a first set of values associated with the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; generating coefficients. using digital filters. wherein the coefficients are based on the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool and the first set of values. and where the coefficients are used to calculate a performance score of the computer vision tool using a recall score and a precision score for each labeled image; filtering out coefficients corresponding to labeled images with performance scores below a threshold; in a non-training mode; when the status signal is high, receiving a number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for one or more second images at the area of interest; outputting a statistically adjusted machine count for the one or more second images, where the statistically adjusted machine count is based at least in part on the coefficients generated in the training mode, and the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for the one or more second images in the non-training mode. These claim limitations are mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, which fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional elements in claim 29 are a memory configured to store instructions; at least one processor configured to execute instructions to operate in a training mode and a non-training mode; receiving, for each of a plurality of first images at an area of interest, a number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; displaying a visual status signal to a recipient; and when the status signal is low, outputting to the recipient, a notification of declination to process subsequent images from the computer vision tool.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of the memory and the processor amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Receiving a number of objects counted is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The steps for displaying a visual status signal and outputting to the recipient a notification, are simply outputting the result of the abstract idea, which are also insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered in combination, the additional elements provide no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, The courts have recognized that retrieving or collecting data in various manners is well understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 30-33 depend from claim 29. Claims 30-33 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 30-33 are rejected for the same reason.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), Claim 34 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 34 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those recited in claim 29 and is rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea as wet forth in the Rejection. Applicant states that the method requires displaying a status signal and when the status signal is low to output a notification and declining processing of subsequent images from the computer vision tool. While the claim limitations for displaying a status signal and outputting a notification are additional elements, the displaying step and the outputting step are merely outputting the result of the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g))
Applicant states that the claimed invention provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. Applicant refers to improvements discussed in the Specification in paragraphs 4 and 12-16. Applicant states that these improvements are reflected in the claims. However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement and the improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (See MPEP 2106.05(a), sixth paragraph). As discussed in the rejection above, the additional elements recited in the claims describe insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
